Rep. Shea Reveals MORE Breaking News About BLM
by Shari Dovale
Washington Representative Matt Shea is all over these leaks coming out of the Bunkerville ‘Trial of the Century’. Exclusively through Redoubt News, Shea tells the world about ANOTHER leaked document that has BLM Agent Kent Klemen trying to discredit the Larry Wooten whistleblower report, but it actually reinforces Wooten’s information.
To begin with, Agent Kent Klemen was a government witness in this case, who was asked by Acting US Attorney Steven Myhre to investigate the shredding of the documents found at the Incident Command Post (ICP) after the BLM and FBI left the area. Not only did Myhre want Klemen to lead the investigation but Myhre also defined the parameters of this same investigation.
It is interesting that this trained investigator never ask anyone involved “Why” they were shredding documents or “Who” directed them to shred the documents.
Now, we have AUSA Myhre asking his favorite investigator to handle this whistle-blower report, as well. The Klemen report begins:
On February 17,2017, BLM Special Agent (SA) Larry “Clint” Wooten was removed from the Bundy investigative team at the request of lead prosecutor First Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Myhre. Myhre stated that Wooten had made recent statements that Wooten believes that the BLM lacks law enforcement authority. Additionally, Wooten recently stated to Bundy case prosecutors that in Wooten’s opinion the government withheld exculpatory evidence involving Special Agent-in-Charge (SAC) Dan Love.
He then explains how he got onto this investigation:
Myhre requested that I collect and review Wooten’s case materials to identify any previously undisclosed information. Myhre specifically requested that I review Wooten’s “rumor log” that Wooten implied to the prosecutors contained this withheld exculpatory information. Myhre also requested that I review any material related to Wooten’s claim that Dan Love ordered BLM officers to “rough up” Bundy family members or to “kick Cliven Bundy in the teeth” that Wooten said BLM SA Rand Stover knew about.
You can see, by their own wording, that they thought the Wooten disclosures were detrimental to their case. Calling it a “rumor log” shows they want the report discredited.
“Potential Issues/Critical Vulnerabilities.”
The reviewed materials included calendar notes for a conference call with prosecutors on October 14, 2016. Listed under “Critical Vulnerabilities”, the report itemizes the following topics that the BLM agent felt were critical:
1. BLM was heavy handed even cruel in the enforcement of the court order.
2. BLM lacked law enforcement authority in their case.
3. BLM is a poor manager of the resources such as grazing.
4. DL (Dan Love) had a personal agenda and is immoral (jury appeal)
This indicates this is nothing new to AUSA Myhre. The prosecutors knew about this since the conference call on October 14, 2016! It did not suddenly get revealed to him in February 2017. He knew about this months before.
However, nothing was done until Larry Wooten pressed the issue. The prosecutors never turned over this information to the defense, as is required under the Brady Rules. Not when they first learned of it, and not when Larry Wooten wrote his email report. Not even when Klemen was told to investigate Wooten after he wrote the whistle-blower email.
And not anytime during the first two trials of these 19 men. It was not revealed until well into the third trial.
This report verifies that the Bureau of Land Management’s own investigator believed that the BLM was in violation of the law during the Bunkerville protest!
It is time for the prosecution to stop playing fast and loose with the Brady rules. Judge Gloria Navarro needs to take control and sanction these rogue government employees.
Matt Shea is a kook! I can’t believe Wa St. Dist 4 keeps electing him.
BLM, Fish and Wildlife, and the forest service are all involved in enforcing agenda 21 for the UN operating under the guise of the endangered species act. Those agencies are actually foreign international corporations and they work with the UN to help their agenda. BLM doesn’t manage the forests except to manage to make those forests a tinderbox just waiting for a spark. They are involved in land grabs and the sale of our resources to a foreign government aka the UN. If we get rid of the BLM then those jobs that weren’t being done can turn into jobs for local loggers to really clear and protect the forests.
It has become apparent that the “Critical vulnerability” in this trial is Myhre himself. While he may have gotten away with hiding evidence in less publicized drug or gang cases, he is now in the big leagues, the Trial of the Century, and his flimflams won’t fly. We have seen him caught in bald faced lies – his denials about survellance cameras and snipers come to mind – and it was very poor judgement on his part to think he would not be caught out. Accustomed to going through the motions in a rigged game, Myhre now finds himself in a true adversarial test, and is outmanned. I suspect that Wooten found himself in a dilemma that will be familiar to many institutional employees, the choice between accepting gross corruption for the sake of job and career – to go along to get along – or to preserve his own honor and integrity by speaking out.
“I’ve got to tell you, it’s impressive when you have a tough case, a controversial case, and you’ve got the top guy leading the battle, going to court, standing up and defending the office and the principles of the law,”
– Attorney General Jeff “The Stiff” Sessions
This Feb 2017 memorandum is one big CYA contrivance. It’s Kleman telling Myhre, “Rest assured I’ve got Wooten under wraps,” and Kleman telling the rest of the world, “See. Even Wooten agrees that the government hasn’t withheld exculpatory material.” Too bad for the prosecution that the evidence finally released in this third trial completely contradicts that latter narrative.
A significant point in the memorandum is that Kleman explicitly states that Wooten was removed from the investigation at the request of Steven Myhre then he goes on to give reasons why Wooten’s dismissal from the case would not have been unjustified, if the prosecution were acting within discovery rules. If Wooten, as Kleman claims, agreed that the government “turned in 100% of all investigative findings and materials during the discovery process,” and if the prosecution had really done so, then what legitimate complaint could Myhre have about Wooten’s investigation?
I, of course, meant to say “why Wooten’s dismissal from the case would not have been JUSTIFIED.”